On 17.01.2025 13:24, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Fri Jan 17, 2025 at 10:31 AM GMT, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> While we want certain things turned off in shim-exclusive mode, doing >>>> so via "depends on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE" badly affects allyesconfig: Since >>>> that will turn on PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE, other options will be turned off as >>>> a result. Yet allyesconfig wants to enable as much of the functionality >>>> as possible. >>>> >>>> Retain PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE as a prompt-less option such that first of all >>>> C code using it can remain as is. This isn't just for less code churn, >>>> but also because I think that symbol is more logical to use in many >>>> (all?) places. >>>> >>>> Requested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> The new Kconfig control's name is up for improvement suggestions, but I >>>> think it's already better than the originally thought of >>>> FULL_HYPERVISOR. >>> >>> I think the approach in general is OK, maybe we can improve the naming >>> further. What about one of the following? >>> >>> NO_PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE >>> PV_SHIM_NOT_EXCLUSIVE >> >> IMO negated options are confusing, and if possible I think we should >> avoid using them unless strictly necessary. > > The problem is that the option is negative in nature. It's asking for > hypervisor without _something_. I do agree with Stefano that shim would be > better in the name. Otherwise readers are forced to play divination tricks. > > How about something like: > > SHIMLESS_HYPERVISOR > > That's arguably not negated, preserves "shim" in the name and has the correct > polarity for allyesconfig to yield the right thing.
Except that a hypervisor with this option enabled isn't shim-less, but permits working in shim as well as in non-shim mode. Jan
